Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell
Significance, Political Cartoons Or Parodies
Hustler Magazine, Inc., et al.
Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a public figure cannot recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by a magazine's publication of an advertisement parody that used the figure's name and likeness.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Alan L. Isaacson
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Norman Roy Grutman
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
None (Anthony M. Kennedy did not participate)
Date of Decision
24 February 1988
Held that a public figure cannot recover for emotional injury caused by publication of a parody that could not be reasonably taken as a statement of fact.
- New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964).
- FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
- Alexander, Larry. "Banning Hate Speech and the Sticks and Stones Defense." Constitutional Commentary, Spring 1996, pp. 71-100.
- Johnson, John W., ed. Historic U.S. Court Cases, 1690-1990: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992.
- Smolla, Rodney A. Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt: The First Amendment on Trial. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1990.
- Illinois v. Gates - Significance, The Exclusionary Rule, Invalid Warrant, Hints Of New Stance On Exclusionary Rule, Decision, "with Apologies"
- Hudson v. Palmer - Significance, Impact, Do Prison Inmates Have Rights?
- Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell - Significance
- Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell - Political Cartoons Or Parodies
- Other Free Encyclopedias